Your Weekly Rush - I'm Shocked and Dismayed to find Rush Accurate

Caught Rush's morning update today - in which he read an article by Jonathan Chait from the LA Times (I got it from Common Dreams). The article, based on the quotes Rush read, was an argument in favor of putting Saddam back on the throne.

The disadvantages of reinstalling Hussein are obvious, but consider some of the upside. He would not allow the country to be dominated by Iran, which is the United States' major regional enemy, a sponsor of terrorism and an instigator of warfare between Lebanon and Israel. Hussein was extremely difficult to deal with before the war, in large part because he apparently believed that he could defeat any U.S. invasion if it came to that. Now he knows he can't. And he'd probably be amenable because his alternative is death by hanging.

My first reaction to this was that there was certainly more to the article than Rush was reading. How shocking to determine that there really wasn't. There's no real sarcasm here - Chait appears to be playing it strait. I was shocked - Rush had, more or less, gotten it right.

But then I remembered; Rush had begun his speech by implying that his was a majority view among Democrats. So I guess he doesn't get the honesty award after all. I for one think that putting Saddam back in power is a terrible idea for a number of reasons. The guy really was a brutal dictator. It would be a betrayal of both the Iraqi people and our own principles to place him back on the throne, no matter the short term benefits.

New Sketch

For those interested, just posted a new sketch, "Artichokes," over at Seventy Sketches.

Satire?

Sometimes it's hard to tell. But I think that's on purpose - sometimes you have an extreme idea that you don't want to actually be held accountable for. So you write in a way so that people who are predisposed to like it can say "Hey, that's a great idea. And people who are predisposed to not like it can say "Well it's just a joke."

Michael S. Adams wants us all to get a gun. And he's encouraging his readers to help in the process.

There's about a 50% chance that a gun-less person will go buy a firearm if you take him out to the range for an afternoon of shooting. But there's about a 100% chance he'll go buy a firearm if you hand him a check for that express purpose. Just make sure you pick someone who is at least slightly to the left of you politically - I prefer moderates and those who "vote for the best person" - and you will soon have a fellow right-wing, gun-toting friend.

Just imagine what America would look like if we all did the same thing this Christmas. Before long there would be no more Democratic Congress, no more Speaker Pelosi, and no more Internal Revenue Service. Individual freedom would win out over collectivism one gun owner at a time.

You may say that I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join me. And the whole Islamic world will know we live with guns.

That last line in particular makes no sense. Once we all have guns we are just going to march over to the middle east and start taking care of business? Or does possessing a gun make you an idiot who cant figure out what just happened in Iraq?

At any rate, it goes without saying that you can own a gun and still be a liberal.

The Fifties

Michael Barone's latest article covers the challenges facing Democrats in their new position of power. He notes that they will have a hard time getting anything done (because their majorities aren't such that they can just run over the Republicans, and because of the veto pen). He then comments on where the Democrats economic aspirations will take the country.

Thoughtful Democrats like Clinton aide Gene Sperling and Yale professor Jacob Hacker have argued that Americans, even amid prosperity, are increasingly insecure in our globalized economy and wary of downside risks if they have to change jobs or learn new skills. They look back with nostalgia sometimes toward the unionized lifetime jobs many held 50 years ago in mid-century America, and argue that government needs to provide more protection against risk.

The problem is how to do it. Congress cannot recreate mid-century America by snapping its fingers, and the seemingly risk-free health benefits and pensions that unionized companies promised are now in peril because the business model of firms like the Big Three auto companies, the old-line steel companies and the legacy airlines has become unsustainable.

Congress didn't snap a finger to take us from the 1950s (when workers had more rights, the wealthy paid very high taxes (over 70$), and blacks couldn't vote in the south), but they got us here. If we decide that needs of the American Middle and Working Class should take priority over the American Corporate sector, than that, at least, gives us a target to aim for. Rome wasn't built in a day. But of course, Barone, being a conservative and thus favoring corporations over people, isn't interested in building this particular Rome.

Barone then engages, Houdini like, in a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand.

One interesting proposal by Sperling is for a "universal 401(k)," which would give all workers tax-sheltered savings accounts, funded by employers and employees. One option is to give low earners tax credits, perhaps even refundable tax credits, for their contributions to the accounts. Over time, this would increase low earners' wealth accumulation -- progressive redistribution. But it would also tend to transfer funds from the federal treasury to individuals, from the public sector to the private sector -- not the direction Democrats usually want to go.

It's a proposal that looks a lot like the Social Security individual investment accounts George W. Bush called for, and Democrats scorned. It would be ironic if this turns out to be the major progressive achievement of this Democratic Congress.

The difference between this idea and the Bush proposal is that this plan is in addition to Social Security, and the Bush plan was instead of Social Security. That's a pretty big difference there. There's also the deceit that Democrats are opposed to all tax cuts. Democrats have, over the years, proposed many tax cuts and breaks for the working class and middle class. It's simply that they think the wealthy can pay a bit more in return for the nice lives they have.

Country Mouse and City Mouse and Aaron Sorkin

Aaron Sorkin's new show, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, for those who don't know, is all about getting revenge on an America and a Network for slights and insults. In particularly he's upset with right wing religious fundamentalists. He sees a war between secular leftists and religious fundamentalists. In essence he and Bill O'Rielly agree on the contours of this particular conflict, they just happen to be on different sides.

I am catching up on Studio 60 and just watched the two parter, entitled Nevada Day. It wasn't bad all in all, but in the middle thereis a line that Matt (played by Matthew Perry) gives to Harriet (played by Sarah Paulson) that drives me absolutely nuts. Here it is.

Well, your side hates my side because you think we think you're stupid. And my side hates your side because we think you're stupid.

That's a really stupid line. There's an element of truth to it, of course. But not much of it. I think Joe R's deconstruction of it at Television Without Pity is pretty much right on.

Wow. No. And once again, Matt, stay off my side! I know this is supposed to read as something of a mea culpa -- "You're right, we are smugly superior jackasses sometimes" -- but it's such an oversimplification that it's insulting to all sides of the debate. How many other ways could you write that sentence and still miss the mark? "Our side thinks you think we're pussies, and your side thinks we're pussies." "Your side thinks we think you're fascists, and our side thinks you're fascists." "Our side thinks you think we're faggots, and your side thinks we're faggots." Is there a grain of truth in all of them? Sure. But they are so much only a small fraction of the truth that they cease to be true at all. Way to boil down a complex argument down to a point where we all look petty and ridiculous, dude. Matt just smiles slightly, because "Hey! It's all in good fun!" And Harriet ponders it like it's this huge fucking kernel of wisdom. Whatever, Matt.

There it is. I'm not a huge fan of Television Without Pity writing on a Sorkin Show, because while it's clear that Sorkin has it in for Religious Fundamentalists, it's also clear that they have it in for Aaron Sorkin (since season 3 of the West Wing). That said, just because they are biased, doesn't mean they aren't right (in this case).

There are real and important divisions in this country. And as we move into the future some people are going to be disappointed. That's the future. The Secular Humanists and the Fundamentalist Christians can't both get what they want. On the other hand, these divisions have existed for hundreds of years in different forms. The city mouse and the country mouse. The both resent and are annoyed and look down on each other. But they also need each other. Sorkin wants to believe if we would all just admit our bullshit we could get past this. But what he fails to realize that what he's assuming is bullshit may not be. There are real reasons for the country mouse to resent the city mouse, and there are real reasons for the city mouse to be fed up with the country mouse. Reasons that can't be brushed under with simplistic (and nonsensical) statements.

New Format, New Quote!!!

Hey all!

Have a great week-end!!!

What is Conservativism?

Doug Wilson's latest article is that old standby, "Democrats better not govern as liberals if they want to succeed."

People want to elect representatives who will keep the budget under control and they don’t think Republicans have done a very good job at it, so it’s time to try something different. The pollster, when asked why she thought the Republicans had taken such a thumpin’, said that voters could not complete the crucial sentence, “I should vote for a Republican because…..” In other words, the Republicans had forfeited what they stood for, particularly since the age of Reagan – limiting the growth of government to crucial services and rejecting big government spending.

That's a very succinct bit of wishful thinking, isn't it? Of course if you ask the American people if they want a better health care system, or if they want better schools, they generally do. And Giles also lifts Iraq completely out of the picture with this particular storyline.

And then, humorously enough, he argues that if Democrats want to do well, they need to pass some longterm Conservative dreams. Democrats need to do what 12 years of Republican rule couldn't. At a certain point it becomes more than just wishful thinking and becomes outright delusion.

Happy Thanksgiving

Hope you are all having nice thanksgivings. I will note that there is a new feature over at Seventy Sketches - Sketchy Cooking. Go over and check it out if you like.

Time Machines and War

Good This Modern World today, over at working for change.

It does bring up an interesting point - the opponents of the Iraq war have been vindicated in nearly every detail, and yet seem to have gained no prestige as a result of their being right.

Conservativism

Good article on Conservatitivism over at Townhall, by Craig Shirley. It follows a familiar route, i.e. explaining why the Republicans, protests aside, aren't really conservatives. But it is a lot more thoughtful than many of those articles, and doesn't waste time accusing them of being liberal. Rather it is about how Conservatives, who are supposed to be in favor of small government, have been seduced by their position.

The conservative movement was successful in that it asked little of the federal government. The social right knew that government was a threat to the family and the community while the economic right wished to operate with minimal government interference and the foreign policy right wanted the U.S. government to only project American power to protect American interests. That was until the current leadership of the GOP, unable or unwilling to make the minimalism government argument cynically and dangerously decided to sign onto the "government is good" agenda which has dominated the Democratic left since the New Deal.

To the economic right would come billions in corporate welfare, and the most transactional Congress in history, rife with corruption yet little commitment to the conscience of conservatism.

While I obviously don't support this form of conservativism (or any form, really), it is nice to see a more rational version that isn't simply "Be Conservative because Liberals are evil."

Go Big, Go Home, Go Long, or Go Brutal

David Limbaugh's latest article shows him bereft of historical perspective. He reviews the Iraq war and pulls out some suspiciously familiar language.

Some commentators agree, but go further, saying that we are not fighting the war to win, but are allowing the Iraqi government to handcuff us in our conduct of the war and pursuit of certain enemy factions.

. . . Are we really forcing our troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs? If so, why? Is it because the administration believes that unleashing our forces will militate against Iraqi sovereignty? Even if so, isn't it time we reconsider the opportunity cost of such deference: that this war is dragging on longer than the American public is willing to tolerate?

And some people foolishly claim that there are parallels between the Iraq war and Vietnam.

Will going brutal lead to victory in Iraq? I suppose that depends on what we are trying to achieve there. I would think if our goal is to win their hearts and minds, more indiscriminate slaughter and less concern over civilian casualties would hamper that goal. If the goal is to create the illusion of peace so that we can leave and claim victory, such a strategy might succeed. But if that really is our goal at this point, what a paltry and pathetic nation we've become.

Limbaugh claims our goal is to train Iraqi forces so that they can protect the Iraqi government (which we would prefer to be democratic, but we aren't picky about (according to Limbaugh).

On the plus side, when we pull our troops out, Limbaugh already knows who is at fault - wimpy liberals who failed to allow our troops to kill more Iraqis. If only we had been more brutal, if only we had been allowed to be more brutal, we could have won. Yeah that sounds familiar.

New Sketch

There's a new sketch up over at Seventy Sketches, entitled the Lemur Sketch. It is about Lemurs but no Lemurs actually appear in the sketch. This makes Three out of Seventy, or approximately 4.29% of the way through my journey.

A Whiff of Sanity

Wait - the wind changed. That's not sanity. It's something else, from one of the comments to the article mentioned below. A comment made by a person named Southerner.

Evil?

Obama is no more Evil than ANY so-called Christian who voted for a Democrat - ANY DEMOCRAT!God is never going to let me decide who enters the Pearly Gates, but just in case He does - I'M KEEPING A LIST!

That's a good idea. Let me just get out a piece of paper. People I'm going to keep out of heaven if the opportunity arises. First of all, Howie Mandel. For the standard reasons. Secondly, Adolf Hitler. Finally, Southerner for condemning liberals to hell.

Barak Obama

Barak Obama might run for President in 2008 and it seems likely that he will run for President someday. To make matters worse, he's moderately liberal and a Democrat. And yet some evangelicals don't seem to realize the danger he poses. Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life," has even invited this fiend to speak at his church. Luckily the eminently sane and sensible Kevin McCullough is here to set him straight.

Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit - a sacred place of honor in evangelical tradition - to the inhumane, sick, and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?

. . . Warren is ready to turn over the spiritual mantle to a man who represents the views of Satan at worst or progressive anti-God liberals at best in most of his public positions on the greatest moral tests of our time.

And here you thought Obama represented the people of Illinois. Turns out he's really representing Satan.

Most of the article is about how Obama supports abortion and gay marriage, which qualify him as a servant of evil. McCullough throws a lot of accusations Obama's way, some of which seem quite outlandish. You wonder if McCullough ever thinks through the implications of these accusations? Probably not.

The Drama

For those following the Pelosi, Murtha, Hoyer fandango, here's a good article by Joe Conason, written before the final pas a deux (by which I mean written before Hoyer won the vote). He notes both Murtha and Hoyers ethical lapses and suggests, accurately, that running on rejecting a culture of corruption and then empowering one of two men who embraced that culture is, at best, a risky strategy.

As Ms. Pelosi takes up her constitutional responsibilities, she will hear many people say that she is no different from her tainted predecessors, that all politicians are crooked, and that Democrats are just as compromised as Republicans. Her most important responsibility is to prove those clichés untrue, but her attempts to enforce her personal agenda have only made that crucial task more difficult.

It was a gamble, and of course Pelosi failed in this particular gamble. We'll have to see what comes next, but hopefully the factions can make nice once the opening bell for our session actually rings.

Lessons Learned

Here's the lesson Conservative Pundits would like Republicans to take away from this latest election - be more conservative. But that's pretty much the lesson they would like Republicans to take away from any experience. A Republican has some exceptionally good pancakes? The lesson is to be more conservative. A Republican has some crappy pancakes? The lesson is to be more conservative.

At any rate Ed Fuelner's latest article follows this trend, focusing on Government Spending.

"Money can't buy me love," the Beatles famously sang. That should be the lesson conservatives take from the Nov. 7 elections, because the real story of this year's midterm vote is that the supposedly conservative majority spent as if it was a liberal majority.

Interesting. Republicans were trying to bribe their voters, and the voters couldn't be bribed. Apparently.

Of course in this particular diagnosis of Republican Woes there's one name that's conspicuous by it's (near) absence. President Bush. This blind, deaf, and dumb congress abdicated it's responsibility to keep an eye on the Executive Branch, so they got to pay a bit of the bill for President Bush's failed policies in Iraq.

What's interesting is that the idea that our leaders aren't gods and need careful scrutiny and watching is, at heart, a Conservative idea. Trusting our leaders with now powers to surveil and imprison us is supposed to be something they aren't keen on. But this generation of Conservatives doesn't see things the same way as previous ones, apparently.

Has Bush Learned his Lesson?

Nope. Or at least that's the take found in William Pitts latest article over at Truth Out. And I have to say I find that the evidence is on his side.

Smackdown Fever

You might find the comments on this post interesting - I know I did.

But to respond to Catalina's criticism more completely - I know Rush is joking when he says he expected all Muslim Hatred to stop when we elected a Muslim. The other side to it though, is that he implied that because Muslims around the world wouldn't surrender if we elected a Muslim, that there was no point to electing a Muslim.

In other words, the only thing that Limbaugh (or Glenn Beck for that matter) is that he's a Muslim. Well that's not strictly so. They also see that he's a liberal. Which I suppose is probably the clincher.

New Website!

For those interested I have started a new website, Seventy Sketches. While this one will continue focusing on politics, the other one will concentrate on comic writing.

My Fictitious Interview with Glen Beck

MMAC - Mr. Beck, may we have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards face up on the table?

Beck - Go there.

MMAC - OK. No offense, and I know Conservatives. I like Conservatives. I really don't believe that Conservativism is a philosophy of idiocy. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.

With that being said, you are a Conservative, You are implying to a Muslim Congressmen that he has to defend himself, to prove to America that he's not working with our enemies. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not a bigoted moron."

And I know your not a bigot. I'm not accusing you of being a bigot, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Inspired by a story at Media Matters for America, which repeats Mr. Beck's own statements.